|
Post by midwestbro on Apr 19, 2005 23:04:20 GMT -5
If you could create your own "NIRSA All-Star Team" from this year, who would you pick? (setter, 2 outsides, 2 middles, opposite, libero)
I know some of the regions make all-star teams, but I found myself watching the nationals this year, trying to figure out who I would put on my national NIRSA all star team.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by fishman5 on Apr 19, 2005 23:14:47 GMT -5
I think many people got screwed on all tournement selections. But then again not everyone can get nominated. There were a lot of deserving players in the tourney. Its hard to give credit everywhere its due. It proabably didnt help that many teams didnt need great individual efforts to win. Teams like MU, Lakeland, and Illinios just play great together as a team. It seems to me that if one player is struggling the others pick of the slack.
To those of you who are comparing MU to past champions, welcome to 2005. MU soundly beat every team they came across and that earns a championship in my book. Congrats MU, best team in 2005.
|
|
|
Post by palo on Apr 20, 2005 10:33:13 GMT -5
My take from Nationals: -All Tournament teams...how is it Marquette wins and Oshkosh dominates the all-tournament 1st team. I was also pissed at the setter choice. I may be bias, but our setter Mark Caravello is the only setter other teams probably have to consistantly fear. I thought he deserved at least HM over myself. We had an average team and performed way above our expectations...we did that because he ran our offense to it's advantages. Maybe I am just mad in his last year he got no love at nationals. quote] Let me just mention I have been on the selection meetings once at NIRSA nationals and it is a joke. Most of the "coaches" (part coaches, part team reps) have no clue who are the players to watch out there. Also It seemed like every time somebody's name would be brought up 90 percent of the people in the room would state they had never seen him play. So unless your team was in the finals, nobody had seen you; unless you were on there team or had played them. And even if you had played them it didn't seem like they knew who was good. The whole them was pretty lame and it kind of took away some of the luster of it for me. For the most part only a few of the coaches had a real say in who got what.
|
|
|
Post by Onceabigblocker on Apr 20, 2005 11:50:06 GMT -5
It is extremely moronic to make a list of teams that have a chance at taking the title. Any team can beat any team on any day, regardless of seeds and how "easy" someones road is. Maybe cal had to play against a bunch of good teams, but if they were the best team in the tourney they would have won the whole thing. This years final four goes out strictly to the wvc, and the midwest. Great teams beat Great teams everyday, and when it comes down the the top 16 there is no such thing as an upset. If you made it that far you have proven you're legit. "no such thing as an upset". That is actually a moronic quote. An upset is anytime one team is favored to beat another, and does not. Cal was favored to beat Illinois (based on prior performances...Cal beat Illinois before and won EACH tourney it played in this year, therefore their loss to Illinois was an upset), and their loss to them was an upset. Now, you do make a valid point about "any team beating another, regardless of seeds, on a given day". Especially in this day of rally scoring which truly allows for upsets to happen. Back in the days of NIRSA and sideout scoring, upsets where much more rare, and therefore the better teams tended to hold seeds more often. However, it was, and STILL IS, my opinion that only a handful of teams had a strong enough team to make it through the number of tough matches neccesary to win the title. ie...indiana beat Lakeland, but would have never beat Arizona like Lakeland did. I never intended to say anything other than Marquette is the 2005 National Champ. My comment was, and always has been , about the lack of a dominant team in NIRSA this year.
|
|
|
Post by Onceabigblocker on Apr 20, 2005 11:59:50 GMT -5
My take from Nationals: No offense to CAL's big middle, he is pretty damn good. But when I watched him he leaves a lot of gaps in the seam. A team with a middle who runs on time and a semi-smart OH shouldn't have too much problems with him. But he was very intimidating I bet to see across the net. The other thing I realized is how much one play changed the whole tournament. Us(Ball State) had match point against Lakeland in game two and our other OH had a 1-1 and hit it out of bounds and Lakeland came back to beat us in 3. If we had won that point, we would have sent Lakeland to the Silver and IU would have played in the Gold...I was just amazed at how much one point can make a difference and how much we screwed IU. First, lucky for all that Cal's middle plays BBall all year. All of you who play, think how much better your timing is at the end of the year, rather than after the first 2-3 weeks of preseason. Thats how long Rod had been practicing. Illinois MH's did a great job in that match vs Cal. Secondly, your point on one easy missed kill changing the entire tourney, that just goes to prove my point on how wide open thinsg were this year. Someone made a comment on teams find a way to win, well when things are so even (many teams with the ability to beat each other), just logic says that the more tough matches one has to play, the more likely a team is too lose. Its a 50/05 to flip a coin and have it land on tails IF YOU ONLY FLIP IT ONCE. ITS 75% that it will land on tails IF YOU FLIP IT TWICE, etc. When teams are as evenly matched as they were this year...little things (see Ball State's mi%*$#) can have huge effects.
|
|
|
Post by Onceabigblocker on Apr 20, 2005 12:06:22 GMT -5
Let me throw a thought out there... What if Arizona did beat Lakeland in the third game between the two? I don't remember exactly how close the game between Marquette and AZ out in San Diego, but lets say Arizona won the matchup last weekend and advanced to the finals. I would also bet that had Oshkosh met Cal-Berk in the semi's on the other side, OK would have come away with the win. Oshkosh was playing very well up until the second game of the final match. Using the same logic as before, I think that Oshkosh would have walked away from the tourney champions. Given the outcome of the quarters onward, what is the way things "should" have gone? Just outta curiousity, would like to see some feedback on that. Realistically, its all a giant game of rock-paper-scissors, with the way it fell out. Lakeland's slides were enough to take down Arizona, but then again, what would have happened if it didnt work out that way? There's a lot of speculation that could be done on what would have happened if the outcome of one match or another went the opposite way. First I think the comment that Oshkosh would have beat Cal is wrong. They COULD HAVE beat them, but WOULD have? Different teams match up differently. Ask Marquette if they were happy to see Lakeland rather than Arizona? If they are honest, they will tell you they were happy about that. Why? Arizona matched up well with Marquette and beat the RATHER soundly in SD (two games, not very close from what I heard). Also, Cal beat Marquette in SD without Rod, who had holes in his game, but is FAR superior to their other MH. Its impossible to say who wold have done what. Marquette beat two conference foes who they were confident against, and who had both just played long, tough and emotional 3 game matches in their previous match. SOmeone mentioned the "stars aligning" earlier, and they did so for Marquette. It WAS NOT LUCK, as they are a quality team. But they caught all the breaks with regards to seeding, other teams losing, and their few quality opponents having difficult and emotional prior matches. Those are facts that cannot be disputed. Just as Marquette's National Championship cannot be disputed.
|
|
|
Post by MarqVB11 on Apr 20, 2005 14:45:56 GMT -5
First, lucky for all that Cal's middle plays BBall all year. All of you who play, think how much better your timing is at the end of the year, rather than after the first 2-3 weeks of preseason. Thats how long Rod had been practicing. Illinois MH's did a great job in that match vs Cal. Oh, thanks again for letting the rest of the country know just how lucky we are that Rod "everyone thinks he's a God" Benson plays varsity basketball, and not volleyball year- round. If he isn't in volleyball rhythm after 3 weeks, then why is he on the court? What was wrong with the two middles that Cal used all year? Cal wins every tournament without Benson, then loses Nationals with him. Marquette would have had no problems with facing Arizona rather than Lakeland in the semis. I personally would've liked the matchup because we owed them from that match in San Diego. I'd feel just as confident playing Arizona as playing Lakeland. For that matter, playing Cal in the finals is just as fine with me as playing Oshkosh in the finals. Only problem is, Western teams have to face the fact that the Midwest owned them this year. That's the thing about a tournament...the better team goes on. So when Lakeland beats Arizona, they are the better team. Why would we be afraid to play a lesser team (Arizona)? Illinois beat Cal, making them the better team, and Oshkosh beat Illinois, making UW-O the best team from the top half of the bracket. To go along with how we should feel sorry for Arizona and Cal having tough power pools from an earlier post of yours (Onceabigblocker). Berkley had Penn St and Santa Clara. That's because Penn St failed to hold seed, losing to Illinois. Santa Clara failed to hold seed against Northern Illinois and Utah Valley State (I fail to see how they were ever ranked in the top 10 this year). If Penn St and Santa Clara can't hold seed, then Cal should have no problem beating them (which they didn't). Arizona got Cal Poly because they couldn't beat SUNYBuffalo (the ever present powerhouse) or UCLA (a 1st year club team) and Colorado couldn't finish Ball St after winning 25-13 in game 1. Maybe Cal would've liked an "easier" power pool and played Illinois in place of Penn St...and Arizona could've played Ball St (9th place) rather than Colorado (1st round exit from Silver)...I'm shedding tears for the west coast teams right now. As for "catching breaks" in seeding...that happens when you consistently win. We had #10 Texas A&M (but they probably stink, because Marquette got to play them) in our power pool and easily sent them to silver after they lost to Northern Illinois. You can say our first round Gold match with Penn was lucky for us, but that discounts the fact that Penn EARNED their spot in Gold by beating Virginia Tech, as well as Michigan State. No one seems to notice that we beat a very good San Diego State also, who won their pool Thursday (over Texas A&M) as well as their power pool. Maybe it just means that SDSU stinks because we won in 2 games. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks SDSU is a bad team. Your logic seems to be that Marquette won because we faced "easy" teams, while Cal and Arizona lost because they had to play such tough teams. According to you, Lakeland is both a very tough team for Arizona, as well as an easy team for Marquette. Carry that logic through for me...let me know what you get.
|
|
|
Post by MarqVB11 on Apr 20, 2005 15:03:33 GMT -5
Tell me this, who did you beat outside the Midwest? Its just a question. Also, you are right, you beat who was across the net from you...no doubt about it. But even you must admit your path to the final 4 was amazingly easy (any top 10 teams prior to your semi-final match???). Forgot to answer your question Teams we beat outside the Midwest: Central Florida Penn State (x2) James Madison Texas A&M (x2) Hope International (x2) NAIA Utah Valley State UCSD at nationals San Jose State Soutern Cal Penn San Diego St As for path to the final 4 being easy...I don't know, maybe we just made it look easy: def San Jose St 2-0 def Iowa 2-0 def Sourthern Cal 2-1 def Northern Ill 2-0 def Texas A&M 2-0 def Penn 2-0 def San Diego St 2-0 One last statement...you seem to love talking about rankings. But, rankings aren't fact...standings are fact, and that's what you get to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by midwestbro on Apr 20, 2005 16:02:32 GMT -5
My NIRSA "All-Star Team" (Sorry, I'm not good with names)
Setter - Oshkosh setter (Sederberg), or Cal Poly Setter (#15)
Outsides - Al Glitz (CAL), #14 Matt something (San Diego State)
Middles - Fabrizius (Illinois), Gornik (Lakeland)
Opposite - Burridge (Arizona)
Libero - Rocky (Lakeland)
And I would probably take Marquette's Coach.
If anyone thinks they have a team that could beat these guys, bring it on!!
|
|
|
Post by nellakwah21 on Apr 20, 2005 16:26:57 GMT -5
Oh, thanks again for letting the rest of the country know just how lucky we are that Rod "everyone thinks he's a God" Benson plays varsity basketball, and not volleyball year- round. If he isn't in volleyball rhythm after 3 weeks, then why is he on the court? What was wrong with the two middles that Cal used all year? Cal wins every tournament without Benson, then loses Nationals with him. That's a great point. And if the "favorites" in the tourney would hold seeds, then many people wouldn't be complaining about easy routes to the finals. Hence, MU backing up their #2 ranking, and winning the whole thing to claim #1. They get the "luxury" (quotes because they are still good teams) of playing Penn and the like because they kept WINNING. Look, every team in the gold bracket is awesome. I wouldn't want to play any of them more than once let alone in sequence, maybe you'd get different results. Every team, even teams no one talks about, like Maryland, are that good. But thats why Nationals is great. It's not double elimimation, and the teams at the top were the ones who wanted it most in Kansas City. MarqVB- are you or any of the guys from MU or Oshkosh coming back for a 5th year? I am wondering who played their last Nationals in 2005.
|
|
|
Post by Onceabigblocker on Apr 20, 2005 16:40:50 GMT -5
Marquette would have had no problems with facing Arizona rather than Lakeland in the semis. I personally would've liked the matchup because we owed them from that match in San Diego. I'd feel just as confident playing Arizona as playing Lakeland. For that matter, playing Cal in the finals is just as fine with me as playing Oshkosh in the finals. Only problem is, Western teams have to face the fact that the Midwest owned them this year. That's the thing about a tournament...the better team goes on. So when Lakeland beats Arizona, they are the better team. Why would we be afraid to play a lesser team (Arizona)? Illinois beat Cal, making them the better team, and Oshkosh beat Illinois, making UW-O the best team from the top half of the bracket. To go along with how we should feel sorry for Arizona and Cal having tough power pools from an earlier post of yours (Onceabigblocker). Berkley had Penn St and Santa Clara. That's because Penn St failed to hold seed, losing to Illinois. Santa Clara failed to hold seed against Northern Illinois and Utah Valley State (I fail to see how they were ever ranked in the top 10 this year). If Penn St and Santa Clara can't hold seed, then Cal should have no problem beating them (which they didn't). Arizona got Cal Poly because they couldn't beat SUNYBuffalo (the ever present powerhouse) or UCLA (a 1st year club team) and Colorado couldn't finish Ball St after winning 25-13 in game 1. Maybe Cal would've liked an "easier" power pool and played Illinois in place of Penn St...and Arizona could've played Ball St (9th place) rather than Colorado (1st round exit from Silver)...I'm shedding tears for the west coast teams right now. As for "catching breaks" in seeding...that happens when you consistently win. We had #10 Texas A&M (but they probably stink, because Marquette got to play them) in our power pool and easily sent them to silver after they lost to Northern Illinois. You can say our first round Gold match with Penn was lucky for us, but that discounts the fact that Penn EARNED their spot in Gold by beating Virginia Tech, as well as Michigan State. No one seems to notice that we beat a very good San Diego State also, who won their pool Thursday (over Texas A&M) as well as their power pool. Maybe it just means that SDSU stinks because we won in 2 games. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks SDSU is a bad team. Your logic seems to be that Marquette won because we faced "easy" teams, while Cal and Arizona lost because they had to play such tough teams. According to you, Lakeland is both a very tough team for Arizona, as well as an easy team for Marquette. Carry that logic through for me...let me know what you get. Wow, bitter beer face. I'll try too answer all. LOL Your comment seemed to be verymatter of fact, "the better team goes on". Well that is not the case all the time! The team that "played better" in that particular match goes on. Two very different points. Your point would be Illinois is better than Cal? because they beat them in that one match. Then how come you beat Illinois yet lost to Cal?? Its because teams play different in each match! One match does not reflect the better overall team, you should know that based on the fact you beat Oshkosh a number of times and lost to them more than once as well. I would say your team in consistently better than Oshkosh, but had they beat yo in that one final match, would you tell everyone "Oshosh is a better team than us"?? No, you would say they beat us that match, or likely, "we sucked and played like sh**". As for this comment by you "According to you, Lakeland is both a very tough team for Arizona, as well as an easy team for Marquette. Carry that logic through for me...let me know what you get." OK, try this logic. Certain teams match up better with others. That is just a fact of volleyball, or sports in general. Big hitting teams have problems with teams who have big blocks, teams with shaky serve-recieve have trouble with strong serving teams, etc... Arizona, and the West teams in general have trouble with teams that run the slide. The Arizona guys who compained about the slide being a 'chick play' were losers, cuz if you cannot stop it, who cares if its a chick play. Apparently, your team has trouble with strong west coast teams as you went 0-3 against then this year?? Who knows, I wasnt there. Oh wait, yo think SDSU who never won more than half their matches at a given tourney was a strong west team. I must admit, thats aboput as good as they can play, but trust me, they never did anything out west. And your list of who you beat, um.....look at it yourself, are you really impressed with that list of teams?? Prior to Nationals. UCSD was the only team that even made the GOLD bracket at Nationals. And I think all admit they are a decent team at best. And I never said you won because you had an easy draw. I said that things lined up so you didn't have many tough matches. You feel free to believe that you did, whatever. I never said you guys were "lucky, undeserving, or a bad team". I said this years Nationals lacked a dominant team and of all the NIRSA Champs I have seen, you were among the weakest. Perhaps not he best timing for my statement, but it is in this man's opinion...a factual one. I have seen every NIRSA Champion except the year Arizona beat Providence, and therefore feel I have a better reference than most. The fact the National Champ likely had what, 10 loses during the regular season should hold that up. The fact is... outside of your own conference, your team showed they were a power, capable of competing with anyone, but your won-loss record also showed you were far from dominant...which was my comment the entire link of e-mails. The midwest won at NIRSA when it mattered. Illinois stepped up and played a great quarterfinal match. I truly think they would have beat your team, Oshkosh, Lakeland or Arizona during that one match. They were just on! They played OK against Oshkosh, but lost a small step, the difference in my opinion. I believe everything I have stated to be truth, or at least am strong in my beliefs of the things that are 'opinions'. Your team played great this past weekend, won every match that mattered and earned the trophy. If you really read all I have written you will see I never swayed from that. You are the Champ this year, and next year uuntil someone knocks you off. But if you were to play Cal in a match this coming weekend and I had to bet on the winner, well lets jst say my money would be placed elsewhere. BTW, had Cal won it all, I'd still be saying this years Nationals lacked a trus dominant team. TAG< you are it
|
|
|
Post by Onceabigblocker on Apr 20, 2005 16:45:48 GMT -5
That's a great point. And if the "favorites" in the tourney would hold seeds, then many people wouldn't be complaining about easy routes to the finals. Hence, MU backing up their #2 ranking, and winning the whole thing to claim #1. They get the "luxury" (quotes because they are still good teams) of playing Penn and the like because they kept WINNING. Look, every team in the gold bracket is awesome. I wouldn't want to play any of them more than once let alone in sequence, maybe you'd get different results. Every team, even teams no one talks about, like Maryland, are that good. But thats why Nationals is great. It's not double elimimation, and the teams at the top were the ones who wanted it most in Kansas City. MarqVB- are you or any of the guys from MU or Oshkosh coming back for a 5th year? I am wondering who played their last Nationals in 2005. Actually Cal and Arizona held seed and won all their matches. Cal with more ease than Marquette ( Cal lost no games the quarters ) but because other quality teams lost, it just worked out that Cal had to face some of them. Cal as the #1 seed did everything they were supposed to do but still caught playing the HOTTEST team, and poorly seeded ILLINOIS. Just the way it turned out.
|
|
|
Post by MossV2 on Apr 20, 2005 16:57:32 GMT -5
How about a little bit of props for Southern Cal being the only team to take a game off Marquette the entire tournament, and pushing them to 15-13 in the last game.
Curious to hear your thoughts on your match vs. So Cal, since it was the closest one - I play for them but wasn't able to make the trip to nationals, and a first hand account from the other side would be fun.
|
|
Lew8ftln
Sophomore
Tweet? Follow team updates @oshkoshmvball or myself @bigfire8
Posts: 163
|
Post by Lew8ftln on Apr 20, 2005 17:08:26 GMT -5
MarqVB- are you or any of the guys from MU or Oshkosh coming back for a 5th year? I am wondering who played their last Nationals in 2005. In regards to who is coming back next year for Oshkosh: I'm done and our serving specialist (serves for big animal semrad) won't be back, and our freshman middle may be going to play at Cardinal Stritch---but that is not for sure yet.
|
|
|
Post by MarqVB11 on Apr 20, 2005 17:44:03 GMT -5
And your list of who you beat, um.....look at it yourself, are you really impressed with that list of teams?? I believe everything I have stated to be truth That post was in response to you saying "Tell me this, who did you beat outside the Midwest? Its just a question." So I gave you just an answer. Did I say we were fantastic for beating any or all of those teams? You were the one who brought it up. I'm going to end my response to you since, apparently, what you say goes as truth. Maybe you can get something else out of me the next time you say Marquette is the worst national champ ever. Blow it out your *ss and go play some outdoor. As for who is staying/going for Marquette next year: Going: MH Steve Austin MH Josh Biros DS Danny Romes (came in to serve) Maybe staying: RSH Chuck Warner S Marc Babyar (he's in the maybe group because he was thinking of not coming back this year, not sure what he's thinking now) Staying: OH Tom Liszka OH Ryan Biros L Matt Zwolski MH/DS Robert Davis Lewin...someone mentioned your libero also possibly going to Stritch...anything legit about that statement?
|
|